+- Green Bay Forum (http://www.greenbayweathercam.com/gbf)
+-- Forum: Lets Talk (http://www.greenbayweathercam.com/gbf/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Local Chatter (http://www.greenbayweathercam.com/gbf/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable (/showthread.php?tid=1936)
Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - k.d. - 02-23-2021
In his dissent Justice Thomas argued mass mail-in voting, which was conducted in Pennsylvania for the first time ahead of the 2020 presidential election in November, combined with election rules being rewritten last minute, makes the process prone to fraud and mistrust.
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emer- gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote. "Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evi- dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec- tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/02/22/three-supreme-court-justices-believe-pennsylvania-election-case-should-be-review-n2585115
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - j.p. - 02-23-2021
Then let me explain the "inexplicable" to your favorite activist judge.
Precedent. But don't believe me look it up
Your welcome
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - k.d. - 02-23-2021
I'm with Judge Thomas, but if you have such information you should email it to him, he seems like a judicious man.
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - j.p. - 02-23-2021
He is almost a 100% conservative lock. And a disciple of Rush Limbaugh
But he is smart enough to research how past courts have consistently ruled on similar matters.
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - k.d. - 02-23-2021
Quote:He is almost a 100% conservative lockYou mean a strict constitutionalist.
Quote:But he is smart enough to research how past courts have consistently ruled on similar matters.
C'mon man, he's a busy guy, give him a break and send him this vital information that he doesn't know about.
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - j.p. - 02-23-2021
https://www.georgialawreview.org/article/18632-the-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-federal-elections-and-state-constitutions
Gore v Bush ?
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1615&context=lr
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - k.d. - 02-23-2021
Give me the page and paragraph where it says the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - j.p. - 02-23-2021
(02-23-2021, 03:20 PM)k.d. Wrote: Give me the page and paragraph where it says the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.
I'm not a Supreme Court Justice. Certainly you can find self appointed experts on your websites. You may be one of those.
It's that word that you don't understand. Ill try again.
precedent
[precedent]
NOUN- an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - k.d. - 02-23-2021
Precedent is found in court cases. I'm just asking you to reveal where they are and what they said that nullifies the Constitution.
RE: Justice Thomas: Inexplicable - j.p. - 02-23-2021
The U of Florida link in particular provides a buttload of cases where the application of the so called "Independent State Legislature Doctrine" failed or was deemed non-applicable. PRECEDENT. I'm sure Thomas has some cute young aides who can look it up.
He may not agree and precedent is not the where-for-all in deciding cases. But Justices take seriously the work of their predecessors.